Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: settings apply search-wide, not per-hunter. However it says nothing about what happens to collected data when a hunter is disabled, whether changes are immediate or reversible, or what the call returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action and its scope lead the sentence, and the parenthetical hunter mappings are dense but carry real content. It is a single long sentence with little waste, though the settings list could be structured more scannably.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the settings semantics well but skips required-parameter meaning (search_id, source), the effect of toggling enabled off, and any authorization or side-effect expectations. Adequate but leaving meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does by mapping settings keys (competitor_pages, target_cities, decision_roles, linkedin_search_queries, industry/exclude keywords/topics) to the hunter types that consume them. It still leaves the structure of relevant_topics and linkedin_search_queries objects, and the role of enabled/search_id, to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb and resource: turn one hunter on/off and set the fields it reads. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk sibling sdr_set_hunters and from the narrower sdr_pause_hunter/sdr_resume_hunter, though those siblings are never named. Purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an important scoping rule ('only those listed in its inputs' and 'Settings are search-wide') that tells the agent which settings matter for which hunter, but it never says when to use this versus sdr_set_hunters, sdr_pause_hunter, or sdr_resume_hunter. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.